Brian McCallister wrote:
On Sep 17, 2007, at 5:57 AM, David L Kaminsky wrote:
Tomcat
-
We're open to suggestions regarding the order in which we add
bindings to
APIs, and doing such bindings isn't terribly hard. If Tomcat is
particularly critical as an early demonstration, we
On Sep 17, 2007, at 5:57 AM, David L Kaminsky wrote:
Tomcat
-
We're open to suggestions regarding the order in which we add
bindings to
APIs, and doing such bindings isn't terribly hard. If Tomcat is
particularly critical as an early demonstration, we can add that to
the
Subject:Re: Incubator Proposal: SPL
Date:Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:36:03 -0400
From:Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:general@incubator.apache.org
To:general@incubator.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
Over
,
Perl, FORTRAN, etc. -- people choose the language that best suits a
particular need.
I don't think we'll need quite the same breadth of policy languages, but I
also don't think we'll get down to one.
David
Original Message
Subject:Re: Incubator Proposal: SPL
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We proposed to develop a policy-based management infrastructure that
automates administrative tasks by executing policies
Sounds good. I will be curious to see the reaction from the HTTP Server
folks, but this sort of thing is very much needed in real-world
Hi all,
Over at Directory we have an initial attempt at an identity solution in
place called Triplesec.
It does the usual AAA with some additional things like mobile keyfobs
however it's authorization
policy management features might benefit from this project or there may be
some overlap. Here's
Thanks for the quick response on the SPL proposal. I've tried to gather
the questions and respond to them in one e-mail. Please me know if I
missed anything.
David
Naming
-
Seems like the consensus is that SPL isn't a good name. We'll find
another. (Not sure I could get IBM
Hi David,
Thanks for the clarifications.
On Sep 17, 2007, at 5:57 AM, David L Kaminsky wrote:
On the standard itself, not surprisingly, the DMTF encourages
implementations, and at submission, the DMTF requires this text:
Permission to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
Hi Mark,
Thanks for that. I also found other documents on the site [1] to be
relevant, in particular the cover page of [2].
I have no further issues with the IP aspect of this proposal, and
suggest that references to [1] and [2] and [3] be included in the
updated proposal to head off
Re: Incubator Proposal: SPL
The DMTF patent policy is here:
http://www.dmtf.org/about/policies/patent-10-18-01.pdf
The DMTF does not have any IP in any of its specs and
unless DMTF is explicitly notified of such, neither do any of
the members.
-- mark
Craig L Russell wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the clarifications.
On
All,
Developers at IBM and Sun, with assistance from Bill Stoddard, have
developed the proposal appended below. We ask that the ASF consider
forming an incubator according to the proposal.
As this is our first incubator request, we would appreciate any
suggestions, and we're happy to answer
Hi,
A few comments on this proposal.
On Sep 14, 2007, at 11:11 AM, David L Kaminsky wrote:
The design of SPL, a Preliminary DMTF standard, is inspired by
existing policy languages and models including PDL (policy definition
language) from Bell Laboratories, the Ponder policy language from
We proposed to develop a policy-based management infrastructure that
automates administrative tasks by executing policies
Sounds good. I will be curious to see the reaction from the HTTP Server
folks, but this sort of thing is very much needed in real-world deployments
of app servers.
The
On Saturday 15 September 2007 02:11, David L Kaminsky wrote:
Simplified Policy Language (SPL), a standards-based policy language.
Incubator has been discouraging naming projects after domains or standards.
Once you come with a suitable name, you'll have my +1 for Incubation.
Cheers
--
Niclas
15 matches
Mail list logo
